Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saint Shri Asharam Bapu vs State on 1 October, 2013
[1]
21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.7115/2013
(Saint Shri Asharam Bapu Vs. State of Rajasthan)
Date of order : : 01.10.2013
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Mr.Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr.Anjani Kumar Singh and Mr.Pradeep Choduhary, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Anand Purohit, AAG & Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Pradhuman Singh and Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, counsel for the State.
Mr.Manish Vyas and Mr.Kapil Purohit, counsel for the complainant.
Ms.Chanchal Mishra, Investigating Officer.
Reportable <><><><> The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.122/2013, P.S. Mahila Thana (West) Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 342, 376, 354-A, 506, 509/34 of the IPC, Sections 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012.
The matter was taken up for hearing on 16.09.2013. At the outset, the learned Additional Advocate General sought adjournment on the ground that the case-diary was not available. However, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Ram Jethmalani, was allowed to commence his arguments. The arguments were heard at length and the matter was adjourned to 18.09.2013 as [2] requested by the State to enable them to produce the case-diary, on which date, the learned counsel for the State concluded his arguments. However, learned Senior Counsel requested for adjournment to enable them to file certain documents. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for 01.10.2013. Affidavits of Shilpi, co-accused, one Udai Sangani, Sachin Singh Patel, Manju Verma, Megha Sharma, Shiva, co-accused, Geeta and Nimesh Patel and one CD has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner began his arguments by stating that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. It was contended that the petitioner was arrested on 01.09.2013. He was remanded to police custody initially for one day. He was again produced before the court on 02.09.2013. However, the police did not ask for any further custody and was remanded to judicial custody. Hence, he is not wanted any more. The petitioner is devoted to religious pursuits. He has got 400 ashrams all over India and 40 of these ashrams runs schools both for girls and boys. He has ashrams at various places. He is not likely to run away or abscond or interfere in any manner whatsoever with the investigation. Thus, he should be enlarged on bail. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 40 to contend that every man is deemed to be innocent until dully tried or duly found guilty and that refusal of bail is restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
[3]
A rough plan of Manai Ashram was placed on record to show that the mother of the girl was sitting close by during the time the girl was stated to in the room marked as Baapu Ji Room. Point A is the place where three sevak of the ashram usually sit including the cook. Learned counsel argued that if any one cries in Bapu Ji's room, it could be heard by many persons, particularly the persons who were sitting at point A and B, and if any person cries late in the night, the sound is heard in the entire Kutiya. In the present case, no crying and shouting took place. In case, the girl had cried, the mother would have heard. Moreover, the girl left the premises along with her mother without any sign of visible molestation or any discomfort having been faced by her. No one can believe or should believe that anything as alleged could have happened. She left the place looking cheerful. The mother and the daughter returned back absolutely normal.
It was further contended that the prosecutrix was not minor. She has repeated class 7th. The school certificate is of a private school. The only documentary evidence admissible is an entry in the official record made by the public servant in the course of his official duty. Hence, the said school certificate being from a private school was not admissible in evidence as per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the girl is not a minor, the case of the petitioner does not fall under Section 23 & 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual offences Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the cases of Brij Mohan Singh Vs. [4] Priya Brat Narain Sinha, reported in AIR 1965 SC 282, Hoak Saing Vs. M a E Hla & Ors., reported in AIR 1940 Rangoon 191, Ram Charan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1968(3) Supreme Court Reports p. 354. It was contended that no effort was made by the prosecution to obtain the date of birth from the municipality of city where she was born. It was the habit of the guardian and parents to show incorrect date of birth. Thus, the girl should not be considered a minor.
It was further argued that the allegation of arrangement of sending the girl to Asa Ram by Shilpi is highly objectionable. They were never asked to go to Bapu Ji as alleged. From the Gurukul, the parents took her to Shahajanpur. In fact, it was her parents, who followed Bapu Ji to Jodhpur. Bapu Ji did not know that they were coming.
It was further contended that although it was true that on 14.08.2013, the petitioner was holding Satsang but he noticed three of them i.e. the girl and her parents for the first time on 14.08.2013. He might have enquired from where they had come and why they had come. If at all, he has simply advised them to do Jaap and Meditation. They were given accommodation in residence of proprietor Shri Ranjeet Deora, which is located at point D of the Map. They also attended the Satsang on 15.08.2013. They were given food as is the custom. Three of them came and met the petitioner outside the Kutiya and therefore, it was false and incorrect that the petitioner invited either the girl or her parents to his room. The petitioner met them on 16.08.2013 before leaving the ashram. They had no grievance or any [5] complaint. Everything was perfectly cordial. The family of Shri Ranjeet even provided his car to take the three of them from the Ashram. Even upto this time, the girl did not utter a word of any attempt of rape or sexual assault. From Jodhpur, the three of them proceeded to Shahajanpur by train. Even then, she did not tell anything to anyone. Thereafter, the FIR was registered after five days on 20.08.2013.
While arguing, learned Senior Counsel contended that co- accused Shilpi never mentioned anything about evil spirits. She advised that the girl needed medical attention by some competent doctor available at some bigger city. The lie has been invented by the prosecutrix as she was fed up of the life of Chhindwara Ashram, she was used to a fast life and wanted to leave the Gurukul where strict discipline was maintained.
It was further submitted that as per the medical report, there is no sign of rape having been committed. Admittedly, the hymen was intact. Hence, under no circumstances, offence under Section 376 IPC is made out. Further, the petitioner is 74 years of age. He is a happily married man and he has two children. The prosecutrix is the age of his grand-daughter. He is devoted to religious pursuits. It is stated that Bapu Ji even did not know that they were coming. In case, he knew that they were coming, he would have shown some anxiety to meet her, whereas, they attended the Satsang like strangers. Nothing happened on 14.08.2013. He did not meet them whole day on 15.08.2013. Infact, he did not know that they were still staying at their ashram, even on the next day. The girl is not dumb. In case, what she says is true, it is not [6] understood as to why she did not resist or make any effort to run out or scream. Hence, the prosecutrix has cooked up a false story. She was neither called into the Kutiya nor any such incident took place. Her own coduct on the night of 14th and 15th as well as in the morning shows that the case is fabricated.
Reference was made to the affidavit of one Megha Sharma to show that the girl wanted to leave the Gurukul and therefore, she invented the false story. Reliance was placed on affidavit of one Nimesh Patel to state that the said Nimesh follows the Satsang wherever it is held. He is stated to have made a video of the Satsang on 14.08.2013. In the said video, it is not the girl but her father who had spoken about his being troubled by evil spirits. Infact, it is evident from the said video that it was Bapu Ji who asked him to do Anusthan for 11 days in the said ashram and had asked the complainant and her mother to leave. Reference was also made to the affidavit dated 26.09.2013 of Shilpi to state that infact, Shilpi was being forced into not speaking the truth about the petitioner.
Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 260, specially para 19 of the same which reads as under:-
" 19. The Royal Commission suggested restrictions on the power of arrest on the basis of "necessary of (sic) principle". The two main objectives of this principle are that police can exercise powers only in those cases in which it was genuinely necessary to enable them to execute their duty to prevent the commission of offences, to investigate crime. The Royal Commission was of the view that such restrictions would diminish the use of arrest and produce more uniform use of powers. The [7] Royal Commission Report on Criminal Procedure - Sir Cyril. Philips at p.45 said :
"... we recommend that detention upon arrest for an offence should continue only on one or more of the following criteria :
(a) the person's unwillingness to identify himself so that a summons may be served upon him;
(b) the need to prevent the continuation or repetition of that offence;
(c) the need to protect the arrested person himself or other persons or property;
(d) the need to secure or preserve evidence of or relating to that offence or to obtain such evidence from the suspect by questioning him; and
(e) the likelihood of the person failing to appear at court to answer any charge made against him."
Bail was also pleaded on the ground that normally, it is mechanically concluded that an accused will tamper with evidence, whereas, there should be substantial material of such suspicion. It was contended that in fact, the petitioner has placed on record the four affidavits and one CD to the contrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was aggrieved with the fact that they were not provided the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the counsel has not been able to get the said copy of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. till today, which was highly irregular and illegal. Even the statement of prosecutirx under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not made available to them. The counsel had not been granted the liberty to inspect the said statements.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Anand Purohit as well as Investigating Officer, Ms. Chanchal Mishra, Assistant Commissioner of Police (West), Jodhpur Metropolitan, who was present in the court along with the case-diary, submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix under [8] Sections 161 & 164 have also been recorded by audio-video electronic means as per the amended provision of the Act. It was stated that the stand of the prosecutrix was consistent. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix specifically stated that she fell ill on 2nd - 3rd August. However, she was not taken to the doctor. Instead, she was made to see one girl called Bhavya, who pretended that she was possessed by evil spirits. This was done to convince her that she, too, was possessed by evil spirits. On 08.08.2013, the parents of the prosecutrix reached the Ashram at Chhindwara. She was allowed to meet them only on 09.08.2013. At that point of time, Shilpi told them that the prosecutrix was possessed by evil spirits and that they should meet Bapu Ji. After the whereabouts of Bapu Ji were located by Shilpi through co-accused Sharad, the Director of the Institution, the prosecutrix and her parents were guided to Jodhpur with the help of Shiva and Prakash who is the personal cook of Bapu Ji. They finally reached the given address on 14.08.2013. They were allowed inside the farmhouse after the gate-keeper verified their identity from Shiva on phone. Bapu was giving Satsang inside. 100 to 150 people were gathered over there. Thereafter, Bapu enquired from the father of the petitioner about himself and the prosecutrix. After Satsang, all the devotees were made to go but the prosecutirx and her parents were told to stay at the house of Kishore Ji, who is a devotee of Bapu. The said house was inside the same farmhouse. In the night at about 10:00 P.M., Kishore Ji told them that Bapu had called all the three. Accordingly, they went to see Bapu at the Kutiya. He was taking a walk. The light of [9] main Kutiya was switched off. He showed the Kutiya to all the three with the help of torch. While doing so, he asked the prosecutrix as to what profession she wanted to adopt. When she told him that she wants to do C.A., he told her that it was better if she did B.Ed. He also told his father to do meditation for 11 days. He also told that he does not allow anyone inside the Kutiya. One more person beside the cook stayed in the said Kutiya. He gave prasad to all of them and told them to go and stay in the house of Kishore Ji. On 15.08.2013, Bapu came late. At night, the Satsang was held. At about 10:00 P.M., he told all the three to follow him. When they reached the Kutiya, he continued to talk about meditation etc. They were given milk to drink. Her father and mother were directed to go away. However, the mother of the prosecutrix sat there and father left while prosecutrix was told to sit on a platform behind the Kutiya. Bapu entered his Kutiya from front side and switched off the lights and called the prosecutrix from the back door. He made her sit with him and started talking to her. Thereafter, he told her to go and see whether her parents had left. She come back and said that only her mother was sitting outside. He locked the room and thereafter, for about more than an hour, he physically molested her. When she tried to scream, he threatened her that he was powerful enough to get her parents killed. He removed all his clothes and tried to forcibly remove her clothes as well. He started forcing her to perform oral sex. Thereafter, she was allowed to go. Before leaving, she was told to comb her hair and dress properly. She was also instructed not to tell anything to anyone, else it would not be good for her and her [ 10 ] parents. On 16.08.2013 before Bapu left for Delhi, he told her father that he should send her back to Ahmedabad where she should do meditation for 7-8 days and thereafter, he will have her sent back to Chhindwara. Her mother asked the prosecutrix as to what had happened inside the Kutiya but the prosecutrix did not tell anything at that stage except that Bapu was not a good man. When they reached their house at Ajeejgang Shahajanpur, she confided in her mother and told her that she did not talk about it earlier as it would have been very difficult for her mother and father to leave the farmhouse. Thereafter, her father too was told about the incident. Her father in order to confront Asa Ram went to Delhi. When they could not meet him, they went to the police station where the report was lodged. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered on 20.08.2013. During the investigation, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The school leaving certificate of the prosecutrix was collected. As per the school leaving certificate, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 04.07.1997. Besides the school leaving certificate, the High School Certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal was also collected. The date of birth in all the certificates is same.
It was further contended that the story of the prosecutrix is corroborated from the fact that between 06.08.2013 to 15.08.2013, there were 14 calls between Shilpi and the prosecutrix, 46 calls between Shilpi and Sharad, 19 calls between Shilpi and Prakash and 17 calls between Sharad and Prakash. Further, the telephone of the cook is used by Asa Ram. Even if a new cook is engaged, [ 11 ] the telephone number remains the same as the said phone is handed over to the next cook who is employed in place of the earlier cook. It was stated that the mobile phones have been recovered but the SIM has been destroyed by the other co- accused. It was further contended that the prosecutrix has identified the place where the incident took place. The description of the place given by her in her statements under Sections 161 & 164 of the place matches with the place which was pointed out by her. Thus, there was no doubt that the prosecutrix was present in the room with the petitioner. She has corroborated her earlier statement on the basis of which FIR was registered and her statement under Section 161 while recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It was contended that her statement is consistent. She has stated exactly what had happened. There was no exaggeration.
It was further contended that in his interrogation, Asa Ram admitted that prosecutrix was studying in his school. He admitted that he knew Karamveer Singh, the father of the prosecutrix. In the map, mark 'B' is the door, which is the back door entry. In pursuance to his statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner identified the said place as was shown by the victim. The call details show that the various co-accused were in touch with the victim and her father while they were in Chhindwara, Shahajanpur, Delhi, Jodhpur, Manai between the period from 6.8.2013 to 16.8.2013. There is no call between these accused and the father of the prosecutrix before 06.08.2013 and after 16.08.2013.
[ 12 ] The father of the prosecutrix was disciple of Asa Ram since last 11 years. There was no reason for him to make any false allegation against him. It is further contended that when the girl was inside the room, the Air Conditioner was switched on. The voice of the girl could not be heard outside. Moreover, she was threatened and was in a state of shock. The mother of the prosecutrix was sitting at a distance of 50 ft.
It was further stated that during interrogation, Shilpi admitted that the prosecutrix met Asa Ram along with her at Haridwar. It is further admitted by her that the prosecutrix was taken to Asa Ram at his behest. The girl Bhavya, who is cited by the prosecutrix, is still not traceable.
Further, in case, Asa Ram is released on bail, there is likelihood of the witnesses being threatened and the evidence too may be tampered. The parents and the girl are feeling threatened at his hands. The samarthak of Asa Ram are regularly attacking the media and police. The investigation is still going on. As such, it would not be safe to release the petitioner. It was further contended that there was no provision for placing on record the affidavits of various persons in the court at the stage of bail. Even otherwise, the affidavits do not show that Asa Ram did not commit the offence.
Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Iqbal & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4524 to show that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix in itself is sufficient for conviction.
[ 13 ] Para 14 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"14. There is no prohibition in law to convict the accused of rape on the basis of sole testimony of the prosecutrix and the law does not require that her statement be corroborated by the statements of other witnesses.
Mr.Ram Jethmalani, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anand Purohit, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Ms. Chandal Mishra, Investigating Officer were heard. The case-diary was perused. The statement of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. was read. The statement of Shilpi was also brought to the notice of this Court.
The Court is conscious of the fact that while deciding bail, a detailed order on merits may not be appropriate lest it prejudices the case of either of parties. However, in view of the detail submissions including the written arguments submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has no choice but to proceed to decide the same with as much restrain as possible in the facts of this case.
Serious allegations are levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner. The allegation in the FIR as well her statement under Section 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. are consistent. The incident is of the night intervening 15/16.08.2013. Shilpi convinced her parents that the prosecutrix was possessed by evil spirits. Accordingly, they were sent to see Asa Ram. The meeting of the prosecutrix was arranged with the petitioner through Sharad, Shiva and Prakash. Sharad is the Director of the Gurukul. Shiva [ 14 ] is a devotee of Asa Ram. Prakash is the personal cook of Asa Ram, who stays at the Kutiya. It was alleged that the telephone number with Prakash is used by Asa Ram. As per the prosecution, the telephone with the cook remains the same even if another cook is employed. The prosecution has collected the telephone details between Shilpi, Sharad, Shiva and Prakash. A number of calls were made between these four persons from 06.08.2013 to 16.08.2013. Their call details are also traced with the father of the prosecutrix while he was at Chhindwara, Shahajanpur, Delhi, Jodhpur, Manai. Thus, the same corroborates the story of the prosecutrix to the said extent that they were guided to the Ashram at Manai in Jodhpur by all these persons. The complainant has also identified the place of occurrence. The description of the Kutiya i.e. the back door, front door, etc. match the description given by her in her statement. Hence, her presence in the Kutiya is stated to be proved.
The argument that the allegation of rape is incorrect as the same is not corroborated by the medical evidence does not help the petitioner at this stage. In fact, the explicit detail provided by the prosecutrix supports the medical evidence. As per the medical evidence, the hymen is found intact. The same is in keeping with her allegation that the petitioner felt her body in an indecent manner for more than an hour. He removed his own clothes, molested her and tried to force her to perform oral sex. The medical evidence would have been in contradiction if the allegation was of sexual intercourse. The allegation as above falls within the definition of 'penetrative sexual assault' provided under [ 15 ] Section 3A of the Chapter-II of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as the definition of 'rape' provided in Section 375(a) under the Amended Act of 2013.
The next argument that the prosecutrix was not a minor, too, is not borne out from the record. The prosecutrix was earlier studying at Pratabp Singh Memorial Secondary School, Sonepat. The school leaving certificate from Sonepat school as well as the certificate of the present institution run on behalf of the petitioner himself shows the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 04.07.1997. Moreover, the third certificate is the high school certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is also entered as 04.07.1997. The said certificate issued by a duly recognized Board is admissible in evidence. Hence, it cannot be said at this stage that the prosecutrix is not a minor.
The answer to the argument that as to why the mother and others could not hear the cries of the prosecutrix are explained by the prosecutrix in the statement itself. It is stated by her that she tried to call out for help but she was stopped from doing so. Asa Ram put his hand on her mouth and threatened her that the same may not be good for her parents. Moreover, the air-conditioner was on. Her protest was lost in its noise. Even otherwise, a girl of such tender age may even freeze under the shock of the most deplorable act suffered by her at the hands of a person who was worshiped by her family. The same can have a devastating effect on the psyche leaving a young girl stunned and shocked.
[ 16 ] The argument that there is delay in lodging the FIR and that the prosecutrix did not mention anything to her parents and left the ashram without complaining to anyone is answered in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 714, which reads as under:-
""In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about her future. She remains in a traumatic state of mind. The family of the victim generally shows reluctance to go to the police station because of society's attitude towards such a woman. It casts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathise with her. Family remains concern about its honour and reputation of the prosecutrix. After only having a cool thought it is possible for the family to lodge a complaint in sexual offences."
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "In case of sexual offences, the criteria may be different altogether. As honour of the family is involved, its members have to decide whether to take the matter to the court or not. In such a fact-situation, near relations of the prosecutrix may take time as to what course of action should be adopted. Thus, delay is bound to occur. This Court has always taken judicial notice of the fact that "ordinarily the family of the victim would not intent to get a stigma attached to the victim. Delay in lodging the First Information Report in a case of this nature is a normal phenomenon" vide Satyapal V. State of Haryana, (2009) 6 SCC 635."
Great effort has been made by the petitioner to allege motive to the prosecutrix for registering the present FIR against him. It is alleged that the prosecutrix was fed up with the Gurukul life at Chhindwara and wanted to leave the place, so much so, that affidavit of her colleague in school has been obtained to certify her nature, behaviour and character. In order to prove the same, affidavit of one Geeta, one Sachin Singh Patel and Megha [ 17 ] Sharma has been filed. The affidavit of Shilpi was obtained before she surrendered, whereas, Shilpi in her investigation has admitted that the prosecutrix along with her met Asa Ram at Haridwar and that it was in his knowledge that Shilpi was coming to see him. With respect to the affidavit of Nimesh Patel and the CD, the prosecution denied that the same were ever given to them. It was further stated that it has been brought to their notice only now and are procured only to create defence with further submission that a perusal of these affidavits do not show in any manner that the said offence has not been committed by Asa Ram.
Moreover, presently and in the situation as in the present case, the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. attains importance in view of the provision of Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal Nos. 878-879 of 2011), decided on 11.4.2013 observed as under:
"The evidence of a victim of sexual assault stands almost on a part with the evidence of an injured witness and to an extent is ever more reliable. Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding."
In the case at hand, the allegation is made by none-else but the girl whose father was his disciple for the last 11 years. Till now, like all other of his followers, the father of the girl who is standing by her side in full support, was a blind follower of Asa Ram. The allegations made by the prosecutrix against the [ 18 ] petitioner are serious and punishable with life imprisonment. The offence becomes more severe and invites more serious repercussion if it is committed by a person whose public image is of a god man, a saint, who is worshiped by the victim's own family and committed the same under the garb of giving 'treatment' and that too upon a minor. The stand of the prosecutrix is consistent. Thus, at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations are false or motivated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra). There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the said case. In fact, para 20(i) of the above judgment which is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-
"20. In India, Third Report of the National Police Commission at p. 32 also suggested:
"An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror- stricken victims."
Even as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) in determining whether the grant of bail should be granted or not, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his displeasure and submitted that statements of the prosecutrix [ 19 ] under Section 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. have not been supplied. However, learned counsel for the petitioner did not bring any application to the notice of this Court to show that any effort was made by them for getting the copy of statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The documents filed along with challan are supplied to the accused as and when it is filed in the Court, whereas, challan has not been filed as yet. The matter is still under investigation.
Moreover, the followers of Asa Ram are continuing to protest against his arrest. There is possibility of terrorizing and influencing the witness by the petitioner, in case, he is released on bail. The prosecutrix at this stage needs to be re-assured. She has to feel safe and not intimidated. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
Dismissed accordingly However, nothing said herein above shall have any bearing either on the trial or merits of the case.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
Narendra, PA